Christian Freedom vs. Christian Stumbling
“Don’t drink, don’t chew, don’t hang with girls who do.”
Christians are often very cautious about stumbling others, and for good reason—Paul was so adamantly against offending new believers that he was willing to abstain from certain food and drink in order to become like them in their weakness (1 Cor. 9:22).
In our day, this seems to be applied most often to the consumption of alcohol, but I’ve heard it applied to tattoos, tabacco, mixed martial arts, and more recently, what we wear. The reasoning goes something like this, “You shouldn’t enjoy anything that may cause someone else temptation.”
We ARE commanded “not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (Rom 14:13), and we MUST have a sensitivity to another Christian’s weakness.
Our right to indulge in good things with a free conscience, must, at times, take a back seat to the possibility that not all people will be at the same place of spiritual growth as we are (Rom. 14:21). To insensitively flaunt our freedoms in front of someone less mature may cause their growth to be stunted.
However, this blog post isn’t concerned for the process of all this, but in its finished conclusion. You see, many of us take Paul’s willingness to “be all things to all men” as a suggestion to then stay at their level.
But Paul never intended to stay in a place of weakness!
In fact, that would have been for him a sin (Rom. 14:14, cf. James 4:17). The only reason Paul would backtrack on his conscience was with the intention of bringing the weaker brother up to speed. Paul never forced his Christian liberty on others. Instead, he made it clear that we ought not judge one another either way (Rom 14:3).
But we sometimes use the warnings against stumbling in a regulative way—to dictate our lives by the weakness or strength of others, when this submissive act was meant to be both temporary, and intentional. It is temporary in that we ought not ever feel shame in enjoying good things (Rom. 14:16; 1 Cor. 10:31), and intentional because a short-term abstinence from any good thing is so that we can use that time to train our weaker brothers and sisters to know freedom in Christ.
Paul was very clear that the reason for abstaining from something that he felt a freedom to enjoy was “so that they may be saved” (1 Cor. 10:33).
In other words, Paul would give up alcohol, meat, certain foods, rituals, and customs for a short time, in order to instruct the weaker Christians in the gospel—we are saved by grace, not by what we do, eat, drink, or abstain from. Abstinence from something the Bible does not clearly shun, is not salvific. At some point in every Christian’s life there must be developed a realization that “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). This is what Paul meant when he commanded that those “who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength” (Rom. 15:1).
We are called to be sensitive in our living to those who are weaker in the faith. Yet if we promote immature thinking about food, drink, and dress-code, we are leading them into the error of legalism, and our abstinence will renforce a false gospel.
Now how farther can one stumble than that?
Posted on August 22, 2011, in community, Gospel, theology and tagged abstinence, alcohol, alcohol and the christian, christian freedom, christians and drinking. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Bringing a weaker brother “up to speed” where are you getting this? Do you think we should instruct former alcoholics to enjoy their liberty in drinking? Paul would give up alcohol ect. for a”short time” . Where are you getting that from? “If food causes my brother to stumble,I will never eat meat again,…”1Cor8:13 Paul was more concerned about others than his liberty or freedoms. He made himself a slave. 1Cor9:19. It seems a better way to exemplify Christ “slave” than to to be more concerned about our liberties. A true believer understands abstinence is not salvific in any way but merely a preference. Are you also saying that if we don’ t excercise all liberties we are keeping ourselves as well as our brothers weak? If so where? Thanks Rory
Rory, I explain in the next sentence, “Paul never forced his Christian liberty on others. Instead, he made it clear that we ought not judge one another either way (Rom 14:3)”
So, no, “instructing alcoholics to drink” is not what I’m saying. I’m not sure where it says that…
It is not a matter of experience, but judgement. We have the freedom to abstain or partake of neutral things. It will be different for each person. Paul is more concerned with whether we are gracious to others’ who do not do what we do.
Thanks for some clarification. Please expound a little on staying at the same level. I have friends (former alcoholics) who discovered their freedom and liberty in Christ. I want to affirm the fact that It would be sinful for me to judge anyone who exercised their liberty in Christ. Thanks Rory
Paul was willing to be as another Christian in order to win them. That means, if they stumbled over eating a certain meat, then he would forego eating that meat so as not to stumble them. Now, for Paul, eating that meat may have been acceptable to his conscience. But in order to win a brother/sister, he would refuse something that was within the bounds of his conscience in order to edify them. However, foregoing his personal freedoms was not in itself, saving to them. What would save (or continue to save) them was the the Gospel as he patiently instructed them in it—it declares that they are not righteous based on what they eat or drink, but on the finished work of Christ. Paul was willing to deny his own freedom in order to teach others the Gospel. That’s what I mean by Paul “staying at their level” for a time. The reason I say that it was temporary is because of verses I already listed about his motive to “save some” (1Cor.10:33), and entire epistles that he wrote confirming that for him to PUSH extra-biblical rules are a form of self-righteousness, which is a sin.
As for your friends, I would affirm that it would be sinful to judge them if they have the freedom of conscience to partake in something the Bible does not label as sinful (Rom 14:3). But Paul also says that it is sinful for them to judge others who may wish to abstain. The issue is not who does what, but whether we are excepted by God and each other.
What about this:
It causes Billy Bob to stumble when his friend wears blue socks.
Therefore, Billy Bob’s friend should not wear blue colored socks.
But Billy Bob needs to grow up with regards to his stumbling over blue socks.
His friend will not be able to reach Billy Bob while he wears those socks.
Maybe one day both he and Billy can wear blue socks.
The end.
All of that looks sound to me…
Just want to clarify, my friends who were alcoholics don’t desire or want anything to do with alcohol anymore, but they do wear blue socks. : )
If someone drinks and I don’t like it, I am not stumbled. If someone drinks and I follow that example and sin, I am stumbled. Big difference.